{"id":236212,"date":"2009-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-02T18:17:27","modified_gmt":"2019-01-02T12:47:27","slug":"t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 09\/06\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN\n\nW.P(MD)No.7728 of 2007\nand\nM.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 and 1 of 2008\n\nT.Karnan\t\t\t\t \t\t... Petitioner\t\n\nVs\n\n1.The Deputy Inspector General\n  (Registration),\n  Jawan Bhavanam,\n  West Veli Street,\n  Near Regal Theatre,\n  Madurai - 625 001.\n\n2.The Deputy Registrar of\n  Co-operative Societies,\n  Madurai Circle,\n  Meenakshi Bhavanam,\n  Tallakulam,\n  Madurai - 625 002.\n\n3.The Sub Registrar (Registration),\n  Thirupparankundram,\n  Madurai.     \t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue\na Writ of Certiorarified  Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with\nthe impugned attachment before judgment notice dated 31.01.2004 in\nNa.Ka.No.13904\/03 passed by the second respondent herein as well as the\nproceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.240\/2007 dated 27.04.2007 issued by the third\nrespondent and quash the same and direct them to hand over the document\nNo.P19\/2006 to the petitioner and consequently, forbear the respondents from in\nany way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties\nof the petitioner.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.M.E.Elango\n\t\t    for Mr.M.Ajmal Khan\n^For Respondents... Mr.M.Rajarajan,\n\t\t    Government Advocate.\n\n* * * * *\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition<br \/>\naverred that he purchased the property from one R.Viswanathan and other legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of V.S.Ramasubramaniam and settled the said property along with<br \/>\nthe other properties by means of a settlement deed dated 18.11.2003 in favour of<br \/>\nhis legal representatives namely, R.Venkatesh and R.Viswanathan.  As already<br \/>\nstated above, the petitioner has purchased the property from one of the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives namely, R.Venkatesh.  The petitioner averred that he produced<br \/>\nthe document for registration before the Sub Registrar, Thirupparankundram and<br \/>\nthe sale deed was registered on 21.02.2006 (document No.P19\/2006), but the Sub<br \/>\nRegistrar, Thirupparankundram in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.240\/2007 dated<br \/>\n27.04.2007 has rejected the request of the petitioner stating that in view of<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai<br \/>\nCircle dated 31.01.2004, with regard to the order of attachment before judgment,<br \/>\nhe is not in a position to release the document namely, the sale deed of the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that the Deputy Registrar of<br \/>\nCo-operative Societies, Madurai Circle, vide proceedings dated 31.01.2004, had<br \/>\nattached the properties of M.Mayan, M.Vanmathi and V.S.Ramasubramaniam<br \/>\n(predecessors in title of the petitioner), invoking the Rule 126 of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Co-operative Societies Rules, on the alleged ground of misappropriation of<br \/>\nthe Co-operative Societies&#8217; funds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of<br \/>\nattachment dated 31.01.2004 passed by the second respondent does not disclose<br \/>\nany details as to when the orders were passed for recovery of amounts and the<br \/>\nsaid order is bereft of any material particulars.  That apart, the order of the<br \/>\nthird respondent dated 27.04.2007 merely relies on the communication emanated<br \/>\nfrom the second respondent based on which the third respondent has refused to<br \/>\nrelease the document.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has invited the attention<br \/>\nof this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The second respondent in his counter affidavit has averred that the<br \/>\npredecessor in title namely, V.S.Ramasubramaniam was the former President of the<br \/>\nMadurai Urban Co-operative Bank and in view of the misappropriation committed by<br \/>\nhim, his properties came to be attached on 31.01.2004 and the petitioner herein<br \/>\nhad purchased his property on 21.02.2006 after the attachment notice and as<br \/>\nsuch, he has no locus standi to question the said order of attachment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The third respondent in his counter affidavit, has averred that the<br \/>\nDeputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai Circle, who is the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein, had requested the District Registrar, Madurai (South) in his<br \/>\nproceedings dated 04.02.2004 and 18.07.2005 to instruct the Sub Registrars not<br \/>\nto register any documents relating to the properties belonging to the following<br \/>\npersons, namely, V.S.Ramasubramaniam, M.Mayan, M.Vanmathi, R.Venkatasamy and<br \/>\nP.Raju.  Therefore, in pursuance of the instruction from the superior official<br \/>\nand in obedience of the said instruction, he has not released the registered<br \/>\ndocument in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/573919\/\">R.Sreedher v. Registering Officer (District Registrar)<\/a><br \/>\nreported in (2008)1 MLJ 342.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The facts of the said case are that the petitioner therein had obtained<br \/>\nthe sale deed which included the pond poramboke land of 32 cents.  The<br \/>\npetitioner applied   to the Revenue authority for grant of patta.  The<br \/>\nRegistering authority has refused to register the sale deed and withheld the<br \/>\ndocument on the ground that the local authority cannot issue patta in respect of<br \/>\nencroachments in water bodies.  Challenging the vires, the above said writ<br \/>\npetition was filed.  This Court while disposing, has taken into consideration<br \/>\nSection 22-A of the Registration Act which was struck down by the Division Bench<br \/>\nof this Court in the decision in Captain Dr.R.Bellie and another v. Sub-<br \/>\nRegistrar, Registration Office, Sulur, Coimbatore District and others reported<br \/>\nin (2007) 3 MLJ 1025 : 2007(3) CTC 513.  The learned Judge has also referred to<br \/>\nRule 162 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules which provides for refusal on<br \/>\ncertain grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the third<br \/>\nrespondent can act only within the four corners of the rules framed therein and<br \/>\nhe cannot traverse beyond the said Rule 162 of the Registration Rules.  The<br \/>\nreasons assigned by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings will not<br \/>\ncome under the Rule 162 and therefore, the act of the third respondent in<br \/>\nrefusing to release the document, per se, is unsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents would<br \/>\nsubmit that in view of the misappropriation committed by the predecessors in<br \/>\ntitle of the petitioner, his property was rightly attached and the petitioner<br \/>\nhas purchased the property from the legal representatives f the said<br \/>\nV.S.Ramasubramaniam and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the<br \/>\nimpugned notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules reads as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Rule 162: When registration is refused the reasons for refusal shall be<br \/>\nat once recorded in Book 2.  They will usually come under one or more of the<br \/>\nheads mentioned below-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI.Section 19: That the document is written in a language which the<br \/>\nregistering officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the<br \/>\ndistrict, and that it is unaccompanied by a true translation and a true copy.<br \/>\n\tII.Section 20: That it contains unattested interlineations, blanks,<br \/>\nerasures or alternations which in the opinion of the registering officer require<br \/>\nto be attested.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIII.Section 21: (1) to (3) and Section 22: That the description of the<br \/>\nproperty is insufficient to identify it or does not contain the information<br \/>\nrequired by Rule 18.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIV.Section 21(4): That the document is unaccompanied by a copy or copies<br \/>\nof any may or plan which it contains.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tV.Rule 32: That the date of execution is not stated in the document or<br \/>\nthat the correct date is not ascertainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tVI.Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77: That it is presented after the<br \/>\nprescribed time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tVII. Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43: That it is presented by a person who has<br \/>\nno right to present it.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tVIII. Section 34: That the executing parties or their representatives,<br \/>\nassigns or agents have failed to appear within the prescribed time.<br \/>\n\tIX. Sections 34 and 43: That the registering officer is not satisfied as<br \/>\nto the identity of a person appearing before him who alleges that he has<br \/>\nexecuted the document.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tX.Sections 34 and 40: That the registering officer is not satisfied as to<br \/>\nthe right of a person appearing as a representative, assign, or agent so to<br \/>\nappear.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tXI.Section 35: That execution is denied by any person purporting to be an<br \/>\nexecuting party or by his agent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tXII. Section 35: That the person purporting to have executed the document<br \/>\nis a minor, or idiot or a lunatic.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tXIII. Section 35: That execution is denied by the representation or assign<br \/>\nof a deceased person by whom the document purports to have been executed.<br \/>\n\tXIV. Section 35 and 41: That the alleged death of a person by whom the<br \/>\ndocument purports to have been executed has not been proved.<br \/>\n\tXV. Section 41: That the registering officer is not satisfied as to the<br \/>\nfact of execution in the case of a will or of an authority to adopt presented<br \/>\nafter the death of the testator or donor.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tXVI. Section 25, 34 and 80: That prescribed fee or fine has not been paid.<br \/>\n\tXVII. Section 230(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961): That<br \/>\nthe prescribed certificate from the Income Tax Officer has not been produced.<br \/>\n\tXVIII. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of<br \/>\nLand) Act, 1961 (Act 58 of 1961): That the declaration has not been filed by the<br \/>\ntransfer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tXIX. Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Registration)<br \/>\nAct, 1978 (Act 24 of 1978): That the statement has not been filed by the<br \/>\ntransferror and transferee.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. A perusal of the above said rules would reveal that the reason<br \/>\nassigned by the third respondent in refusing to return the document, does not<br \/>\ncome within the ambit of the above said rule and so also, under the Registration<br \/>\nAct.  Therefore, in the absence of any legal sanction, it is not open to the<br \/>\nthird respondent to withhold a document.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. No doubt, Rule 126 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules,<br \/>\n1988, provides for raising of attachment, but the same Rule also provides as to<br \/>\nthe manner of sale or attachment to be effected.  The impugned order passed by<br \/>\nthe second respondent did not disclose any reasons as to why the attachment was<br \/>\neffected.  However, the counter affidavit of the second respondent says that the<br \/>\nproperty was attached since the predecessors in title of the petitioner alleged<br \/>\nto have misappropriated the funds of the Bank.  What is not stated in the<br \/>\nimpugned order cannot be improved by filing the counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons<br \/>\nassigned by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings on the face of it,<br \/>\nare unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned<br \/>\nproceedings dated 27.04.2007 passed by the  third  respondent  is  quashed.  The<br \/>\nthird respondent  is  directed  to return the sale  deed<br \/>\nregistered on 21.02.2006 to the petitioner.  Liberty is also given to the<br \/>\npetitioner to challenge the impugned order of attachment passed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent in a manner known to law.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous<br \/>\nPetitions are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>TO<\/p>\n<p>1.The Deputy Inspector General<br \/>\n  (Registration),<br \/>\n  Jawan Bhavanam, West Veli Street,<br \/>\n  Near Regal Theatre, Madurai &#8211; 625 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Deputy Registrar of<br \/>\n  Co-operative Societies,<br \/>\n  Madurai Circle, Meenakshi Bhavanam,<br \/>\n  Tallakulam, Madurai &#8211; 625 002.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Sub Registrar (Registration),<br \/>\n  Thirupparankundram, Madurai. \t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09\/06\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P(MD)No.7728 of 2007 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 T.Karnan &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.The Deputy Inspector General (Registration), Jawan Bhavanam, West Veli Street, Near Regal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-02T12:47:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-02T12:47:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1602,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\",\"name\":\"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-02T12:47:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-02T12:47:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-02T12:47:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009"},"wordCount":1602,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009","name":"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-02T12:47:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-karnan-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Karnan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 9 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=236212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}